Fradys v. Rondeau
1:21-cv-07891
S.D.N.Y.Apr 29, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Billy Fradys was a member of a Planet Fitness franchise operated by White Plains Road Fitness and signed a Membership Agreement requiring compliance with gym rules.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic Fradys repeatedly refused to wear a mask and was denied entry on multiple occasions; his membership was ultimately terminated.
- Fradys, who alleges epilepsy, chronic stress, and anxiety disorders, sued in New York State Supreme Court asserting: First and Fourth Amendment violations (including privacy/substantive due process), discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title III of the ADA, and breach of contract; defendants named were Planet Fitness and CEO Christopher Rondeau.
- White Plains Road Fitness removed the action, indicated it was the proper defendant, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the plaintiff did not contest substitution; the court substituted White Plains Road Fitness as defendant.
- The court found federal question jurisdiction over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim, granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and gave Fradys 30 days to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional claims (First, Fourth, privacy) — and state-action | Mask requirement infringed Fradys's rights (assembly, speech, religion, privacy) and amounted to state action | Mask policy was adopted pursuant to NY Executive Orders; no constitutional infringement because mask rules are neutral/minimal burden and not searches/seizures | Court allowed potential state-action issue but dismissed constitutional claims for failure to identify any cognizable infringement; mask rule not unconstitutional |
| Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000a) — discrimination | Denial of entry was discriminatory and related to his religion/disability | Denial was due to refusal to follow neutral mask rule, not because of protected class or animus | Dismissed — complaint alleges conduct-based denial, not discriminatory animus toward a protected class |
| ADA Title III — failure to accommodate / discrimination | Plaintiff is disabled and was denied access or accommodations for his disabilities | Denial resulted from refusal to wear a mask; plaintiff did not allege defendant had notice of his disabilities or that reasonable accommodations were requested/denied | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead that he was denied access because of disability or that defendant had notice/failed to provide a reasonable accommodation |
| Breach of contract (Membership Agreement) | Termination violated the Membership Agreement | Agreement allowed termination for failure to comply with club rules (mask rule); plaintiff did not identify a breached provision or allege his own compliance | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead a specific contract provision breached or that he performed under the contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1995) (documents incorporated by reference may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from same nucleus of operative fact)
- Barrows v. Becerra, 24 F.4th 116 (2d Cir. 2022) (private actor conduct can be state action when compelled or controlled by the state)
- Cooper v. U.S. Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 2009) (state-action requirement for constitutional claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading requirement that factual content permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (free exercise claims: generally applicable neutral laws are subject to rational-basis review)
- Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (analysis of COVID-related restrictions and free exercise)
- Vincenty v. Bloomberg, 476 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2007) (intermediate scrutiny for neutral regulations imposing incidental burdens on speech)
- Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (Title III ADA discrimination standard requires denial of equal opportunity)
- DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 747 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2014) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Zaro Licensing, Inc. v. Cinmar, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (elements required to plead breach of contract)